9 replies to this topic

[thekingofgaming]

What would you prefer xbox 360 ,ps3 or revolution?

[Mattias Gustavsson]

It's a bit hard to compare when only one is out, isn't it?

I know a bit about the 360, as I've worked on a game for it, but I must say I'm very disappointed with the initial line up for it. Just sequals, movie licenses or ports, very little original content (the only I heard of is the one I was working on, but haven't really looked, so feel free to enlighten me).

From what I've seen, the games for the PS3 is likely to be similar; mostly sequals and such.

I'm a bit excited about the Revolution though... that controller of theirs could really lead to some very innovative gameplay.

[ProgramWizard]

Ditto on the Revolution's controller. It looks awesome. But even if Nintendo didn't have something new and wacky, I'd still pick up Revolution just so I can play the Marios, Zeldas, and other quirky Japenese games that you can't get anywhere else.

[TheNut]

I wonder if Link will finally marry Zelda… All that fighting for love and yet he hasn’t even scored yet!

I grew up with Nintendo, so having said that my answer is obvious. Although truth be told, I gave up on Nintendo (and consoles for that matter) since N64. The revolution looks promising, but it’s going to be quite a while before she hits the shelves. By then, Microsoft will probably already have announced XBox 1080 =P

[eddie]

@TheNut: Link is a hustler. He doesn't want to be tied down.

[Nodlehs]

I was leaning towards the PS3, but with the great live service Xbox has, which has been enhanced in the 360, is really a draw for me since I am so far away from friends and family(that game as well). And Sony has said they will not have a central online service like live, which is the reason their damn network adapeter for the PS2 was worth its weight in toilet paper.

[Methulah]

I'll buy a 360, my flatmate is buying a PS3 and we will both put in for a revolution ;).

[haxorphreak]

Naturally I try not to concern myself with consoles, but I have been eyeing the 360 for awhile. It's the most visually appealing IMO. I know hardware-wise that the PS3 may be more advanced, but newer consoles will probably be out before developers can even harness any one of them.
Games, I think most will be multi-platform, with a few [console]-only here and there.
Which is why I'm building a pc. Many games will be on that, plus I can develop for it (Unless someone figures out how to install Linux or ReactOS on them).

[monjardin]

haxorphreak said:

Games, I think most will be multi-platform, with a few [console]-only here and there.

I think it is more accurate to say that games will be multi-console with a lot of console-only titles.

<rant>I haven't had a console since the Atari 2600 and I am hurting for a decent football game on the PC. Freakin' EA bought out all the good PC franchises and killed them. Madden PC is horribly bug-ridden and I can't play as my Crimson Tide anyway. :( </rant>

[geon]

I'm a bit exited about the ps3.
But by reason is mostly childish/foolish/hyped interest in the Cell platform.

I think the distrubuted computing part of the Cell concept is pretty wasted on a console, but it could at least be a playground for exploring the possibilities.

There has been a lot of hype around multithreaded games. I've seen statements like "it will make gameplay more living" etc. Truth is, multithreading should be avoided if possible in games. There is simply no real use for it. Multicore processors is just a cheaper solution than faster ones, wich is what you need for games with the highly sequential programming they require.

And gameplay is not enhached by pretty pictures, just the sales numbers.